Now here is an excerpt from his written evidence which he gave on 20th May 2018.

(Paragraph 53)

"It was only coincidence that the fire fighters knocked on the door. As on the first time, although she was only 5 at the time, my daughter definitely saved my life by refusing to come out of the window"

This is again reiterated in the introduction of his witness statement given on May 20th 2018 which reads....

"Prior to the life changing fire at Grenfell Tower, I lived on the 14th floor, flat 113, from approximately 2015 until the flat and the Tower were destroyed. I lived there happily with my girlfriend (,now fiancee) Rosemary Oyewole and our six year old daughter.

So that means on May 20th 2017 his daughter would have been 5 years old.

Now moving over to Rosemary Oyewole's witness statement, at 6 mins 17 secs she gets asked how old her daughter was at the time of the fire.

ok, the 20th statement is talking of current age, as six. His previous statement says 5 "at the time". A year on , the math still works. He is rounding up. now, there can be some license afforded here and also depending when the daughters birthday falls.

@Ausk wrote:While I've not kept up with this tragedy that was allowed to happen, through callous neglect, the winners are always the powerful, the monied and them damn liars for hire.

Hi Ausk, I completely agree with you, I would not be foolish enough to publicly disclose who I think the perpetrators of this sorry episode are but I feel I do have a responsibility to expose the mainstream news when opportunity presents itself.

It is simply not acceptable to allow our news channels to lie to us, their job is to inform but they are now used to mould our perceptions. This can not continue, people need to become aware of what's at stake here.

From watching the tragedy unfold live on tv I've followed this story very very closely. I sensed something was very wrong at the time. The more I have learned about this event the more sinister and disturbing it gets.

There are other important elements to consider before accepting this as some type of tragic accident.

On top of the callous neglect the residents of that building suffered prior to the fire you also need to take into account that other factors contributed to what we all saw.

The fire brigade were not just unequipped to deal with this devestating fire they were virtually disabled on the night. From inadequate water pressure on the turning ladder to inoperable communications. The communication system in place was too complex and ineffective. None of the attending fire fighters had been given any practical or written training on how to deal with the situation they were faced with. Every fire fighter giving evidence clearly states that they had never seen a fire react like that, it was beyond their capabilities.... if it wasn't for a resident with a key fob arriving to let them in after 2 minutes waiting even more people would have died. Would you believe it if I told you that on the two previous fire safety visits to Grenfell Tower they couldn't get in...because they didn't have a key fob?

We then had certain individuals put forward by the MSN to tell us their stories of how they escaped the building. Some of these stories appeared suspect due to the general manner in which they were told. It has subsequently transpired that most of those stories were completely untrue, totally fabricated. I cannot reconcile to coincidence the fact that four of the media's interviewed survivors and witnesses all told lies about either their escape or their actions on the night. This in itself is extremely questionable. Why would these people need to lie? Why could they not just tell the truth?

Then there is the subliminal implanting of the event prior to it happening. All events start in mind, to transmute this to the masses minds they use entertainment. Dua Lipa and Sean Paul singing "gonna get lit tonight" filmed at Trellick Tower, just down the road from Grenfell that coincidentally had it's own fire some months later. Fortunately the LFB were able to contain that situation despite a faulty water pump on the wet riser rendering them without water for the first 20 minutes.

We also had Plan B write the movie Ill Manors which depicted a scene of a baby being thrown from the window of a burning building. One of the songs on the soundtrack of the film was filmed on location at a block of flats very similar in structure and appearance to Grenfell Tower. That video implanted images of fire and flats together.

Even more sinister is the fact that one of the survivors of the fire who was used by the media to peddle lies was also reported to have caught a baby thrown out of a window by our newspapers, which was later proven to be fabricated.

As far as any legal implications of me making these posts is concerned there should be nothing to worry about. I am simply presenting information which is out in the public domain.

All these things considered should at least make somebody question the "official narrative".... which has been a dubious term in itself since 9/11.

If you don't stand up for something, you'll fall for anything....so to speak.

And finally we have Christos Fairbairn. One of the most miraculous escapes of the night.

No need to give any verbal evidence, his story obviously wasn't that interesting compared to others. So instead his story was read into the record. Now if you listen to his interview with Low-key it gives you a pretty good indication of this man's vocabulary range, his communication skills and command of the English language is not at a very high level.

When you read his written witness statement you would think it had been penned by Quentin Tarantino. For those who can't be bothered reading it you can hear it read out by QC Millet....grab some pop corn for this one.

Again he claims it was 4.30 when he left the building in his interview but the inquiry hears it was 03.55, there was no CCTV images of him as there has been with the majority of all other escapees and he managed to stay in conditions unsurvivable according my to all fire fighters for a full 5 minutes with just.the aid of a wet t-shirt. I'm fact the fire service had been withdrawn from all floors above the 10th ten minutes earlier.

You would have thought that somebody with such a harrowing story, seeing e dead body on the stairs that the inquiry team would have found any further information from him quite valuable for their consideration. After all he wasn't shy about telling his story to the press at the time but now with a golden opportunity to tell his story again he has nothing to offer.

Don't you find that a little odd?

Also there were absolutely no record of his alleged numerous calls to the fire service. I've been through all the call logs, more than once.

I am the above named person and am employed as a Tactical Flight Officer, based at NP AS London Lippitts Hill. On Tuesday 13th June 2017, I was on duty posted as night duty front seat observer in police helicopter, call sign NPAS44. My responsibilities included the use of the aircraft video camera system, video recording equipment and microwave video downlink.

On return to base it was apparent that the video recorders had not saved the footage to the SD card in the aircraft. During the flight we were broadcasting live video imagery via microwave 'downlink'. These encrypted transmissions are received at fixed antenna sites around London and can be viewed live by incident commanders during the incident.

Raytheon@RaytheonRaytheon works with @USArmy and @USSOCOM to prove high energy laser systems are viable on rotary aircraft. http://rtn.co/HEL

684:00 PM - Jun 26, 201744 people are talking about thisTwitter Ads info and privacyDuring World War II, when British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said, “we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air,” he probably had no idea that his allies on the other side of the Atlantic would one day be mounting high-powered lasers onto attack helicopters and frying targets in the blink of an eye.

But the U.S. military and a leading defense contractor have apparently pulled off such a feat.

On Monday, Raytheon said that it had bolted a laser to a U.S. Army Apache AH-64 helicopter and zapped an unmanned target at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

The weapons test marked the first time a “fully integrated laser system” had successfully located and shot a target from a rotary-wing aircraft “over a wide variety of flight regimes, altitudes and air speeds,” the company said in a statement.

Raytheon didn’t specify what the target was but said the helicopter’s laser “directed energy” on it from nearly a mile away. Unlike the computer rendering of the weapon provided by the company, the laser’s beam is invisible in real life.

Video from the missile range shows the Apache flying over the New Mexico desert with the laser — a gray, torpedo-like tube with a ball on the front — attached to the vehicle’s right side. Orange cables run from the back of the laser into the interior of the helicopter. At one point the video shows black and white images of a rectangular object with a bright flash in the center of it, captioned “LASER ON TARGET.” Dramatic drum music plays in the background. The laser’s shots were not shown in the footage.

The goal of the experiment, conducted in collaboration with U.S. Special Operations Command, was to see how well the Apache could fire the weapon given the vibration of the helicopter, the dust kicked up by the rotating blades and the vehicle’s “downwash,” or downward airflow. The information the team gleaned will be used to further develop the weapon, known simply as a High Energy Laser, or HEL.

“This data collection shows we’re right on track,” a Raytheon executive said in a statement.

The initiative has been underway for more than a year, according to National Defense Magazine, which reported last May that the military was eyeing a “feasibility test” for the weapon. The magazine quoted an Army official at the time saying that the technology was still in its early stages — not quite science fiction, but a long way from the battlefield.

“The lens we are looking at this through right now is: ‘Is it feasible to do this?’ We’re not at the point where we’ve laid out a business case to advance it,” said Col. John Vannoy, one of the program managers. “I wouldn’t say that we’re at the tipping point and you’re going to see a ‘Star Wars’-like effect or a Death Star laser hanging off the side of a rotary wing aircraft.”

The military is excited about the prospect of weaponized lasers for a number of reasons. For one, they fire in an almost perfectly straight line, making them far more accurate than artillery rounds. They can also be adjusted to destroy or disable different materials with greater precision, which could help reduce civilian casualties in warfare, especially when fired from attack helicopters. Tyler Rogoway, who writes about the military for the Drive, explained how that might work:

Unless you want a fairly large explosion that will obliterate a small building or a few vehicles, the best weapons available to Apache crews are the helicopter’s 30 mm cannon and the recent addition of laser-guided rockets. Yet even these surgical weapons, with their highly-localized effects on the battlefield, still use high-explosives to make a big bang; if you want to be extremely precise with almost no chance of collateral damage, lasers are the way to go.

If you want a tactical aircraft fighting in a combat zone to destroy a piece of equipment, like a power generator, but without destroying the structure it’s attached to, or to disable a vehicle without killing anyone standing around it, you’re out of luck unless you have a laser.

On a slightly less gruesome note, laser rounds are a lot cheaper than artillery rounds, which cost tens of thousands of dollars each, as Matthew Ketner, branch chief of the High Energy Laser Controls and Integration Directorate in Virginia, noted last month.

“Unlike a traditional gun,” he said, “lasers don’t run out of bullets.”

Navy demonstrates new laser technology(U.S. Navy)

Of course, such weapons are designed to destroy structures and take lives, and human rights organizations have raised alarms about their deployment in the battlefield (imagine the unspeakable pain of being burned by a high-energy light beam from miles away). In 1995, the United Nations banned “blinding” laser weapons, which to date have never been used in armed conflict.

Raytheon’s claimed success in New Mexico was the latest of several highly publicized tests of laser weapons systems by the U.S. military and defense contractors. In 2014, the U.S. Navy mounted a 30-kilowatt laser gun on the deck of the USS Ponce and blasted some small targets, including a moving speed boat. Video from the demonstration showed a burst of fire and smoke aboard the deck of the boat as the weapon hit its target.

Also in 2014, Boeing published a video claiming to show a 10-kilowatt laser destroying a mortar in midflight. The military has also had success this year beaming drones out of the sky using 5- and 10-kilowatt lasers mounted atop armored vehicles. After one exercise, an Army staff sergeant told reporters he lost count of how many he shot down. “It was extremely effective,” he said.

I've been waiting a long time for this evidence. It was evidence that could actually prove that Tarzan Talabi never did hang out of his 14th storey window by a hastily tethered vine of bedsheets.

As luck would have it the MLP helicopter arrived on scene at 1.44 am, in very good time to film the entire "die hard'esque thing. After all they reported over their radio seeing blankets in the form of a rope hanging from the 8th floor.

Well with subsequently learning these helicopters are using 5G microwave technology you would think the picture quality to be pretty good, not just being able to see him dangling there for nearly a minute but also the fear in his eyes.

. . Well... how disappointed was I?

Out of ALL the helicopter footage submitted today it appears that just ONE of them appears to have been filmed on a Sony camcorder...with low batteries....that's a bit faulty....that's getting affected by interference...and being operated by someone who's never operated one before....with time stamp blurred ....and no audio.

It's the one when all the Olu action was.....would you believe it?

But hold on a minute what do we have here? There seems to be a similar story occurring on the 11th floor!! Here you'll see, if you squint and turn your head to the side a bit, what appears to be a male sat with his legs outside the building, his body language would suggest he's looking for an alternative exit plan. If you play the video at a quarter speed you will clearly count just 10 floors below him.

At one point this man appears to be hanging out of HIS window the same as Olu was except he gets pulled in immediately by somebody with just a tad more common sense. They didn't have a blanket rescue rope either.

JUST SOME NOTICINGS - 2ND VID - TIME IS ACTUAL TIME AM NOT VIDEO MINUTES/SECONDS. Note the 1st video has blurred coordinates and time. you would have thought it would be impeccably clear.

HELICOPTER IS ABOUT 1 MILE FROM TOWER (CIRCA WHITE CITY)CAN YOU SEE ANY FIRE ENGINES?

2nd vid. just after 3am. "we will not be sending people into this", south west corner video.3:09 - "people in close contact on phones with friends and family in the building, increasing tensions, thats got to be closely managed."3:14 can hear the helicopter = WHY ONLY TIME HELICOPTER HEARD?3:16 white coach/lorry in reflection south side. quickly switched out - edit - lorry not white-its infra red means lorry hot - probably fire engine3:18-"weve got no buses south side" in between can see ir person walking on ground, but where is everybody else including fire engines on ir.3:20:19 can see 3 people on walkway fireman 3:21:13 bottom right south side not wearing helmet3:21:52 group firemen no helmeots south side3:22 second floor from top - looks like 2 occupants wearing flack jackets. in black but if ir means torso cold. only arms and head showing.3:24 loads people east side on walkway 3:27 "deploy the short shields"3:30 first blue light spotted3:33 lancaster west estate people trying to get on roof to get into grenfell - why would people be doing this. didnt they trust the efforts of the services?how come no phone masts on tower?amazing video clarity change between 3:34 and 3:35 - first extended ladder hose seen-east side downlink video does not correspond with speech. Video seems to be searching around the tower, but cannot see one person videoing or taking photos on the ground eg 3:46-37 talk about 11th floor but camera on base.3:44 matt daley keyholder 07969 998852from 3:49:42 what is that reflecting or pouring down apex roof window of property, but not seen on neighbouring same windows?

Last edited by handle on Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:59 am; edited 4 times in total

Thanks for pointing those things out Handle. The contrast in quality between the two camera's is quite startling. And I'm not sure what the molten liquid pouring out of the building is but it doesn't sit right if you think about it.

So undeterred by the dodgy helicopter footage provided I decided to go to the Grenfell Inquiry website and read the witness statements of the Tactical Observation Officers on board. They actually saw it, surely they would be mentioning such a daring escape attempt?

Scuppered yet again as neither TFO's made any mention of bedsheets or people hanging out of windows. And both statements were restricted.

After pouring through the numerous emergency service staff witness statements put into the record yesterday I've managed to find one reference to the rope of blankets. It was made by Inspector Nicholas Thatcher of the Met. This is his graphic and in detail explanation of what he saw....

", there was a makeshift rope made of bed sheets hanging from the lower floor facing the balcony ofBARANDON WALK"

He also stated that there were "banks of people" filming the building on mobile phones....but not one of them captured any one hanging out of a 14th storey window or tied bedsheets either.

What one of the TFO's did put on the record is that although the footage was not video recorded due to a fault it was actually microwaved live to numerous receiving antennas around London.

A pertinent question at this point would be who would actually get the greatest benefit from receiving crystal clear live footage of an "event" as it's happening? .... The police?....well it didn't help their effort.... the LFB?....Well it certainly didn't assist them in any way...

The molten liquid is the buildings cladding melting and the large sparks falling are the molten material dropping off, now think about it a little. Incendiaries were used by both sides during WW II as a large bomb did little damage and onto to an immediate area, an incendiary spat out lots of small and very hot particles over a much wider area and these were hot enough to ignite any combustible materials such as wood in buildings and they hit the ground before the second explosion sets off the particles of molten metals, usually coated

An incendiary hits the ground and the second explosion blasts send particles upwards and the hot particles hit windowframes, hit glass windows ans smash them, they hit the underside of roofs and set light to roof timbers and roof underfelts, they hit wooden doors and windows and set light to the paint. In reality the smashed windows let in any following hot particles and they ignite carpets and other interior fittings and set fire to any rooms facing the blast. Now you have devastation and confusion, people see the fires downstairs and tackle them; meanwhile, a secondary fire is forming in the loft and this is ignored as people tackle what they can see and while they put out the fire downstairs the fire in the loft has time to establish itself. People put out the fire downstairs and the established fire upstairs in the loft drops hot particles downwards and this sets fire to the floor below so you get multiple seats if fire, people tackling what they can see, a fire or fires establishing themselves in unseen spaces, and a fire burning from the bottom up, and a fire at the top burning downwards.

@assassin wrote:The molten liquid is the buildings cladding melting and the large sparks falling are the molten material dropping off, now think about it a little. Incendiaries were used by both sides during WW II as a large bomb did little damage and onto to an immediate area, an incendiary spat out lots of small and very hot particles over a much wider area and these were hot enough to ignite any combustible materials such as wood in buildings and they hit the ground before the second explosion sets off the particles of molten metals, usually coated

An incendiary hits the ground and the second explosion blasts send particles upwards and the hot particles hit windowframes, hit glass windows ans smash them, they hit the underside of roofs and set light to roof timbers and roof underfelts, they hit wooden doors and windows and set light to the paint. In reality the smashed windows let in any following hot particles and they ignite carpets and other interior fittings and set fire to any rooms facing the blast. Now you have devastation and confusion, people see the fires downstairs and tackle them; meanwhile, a secondary fire is forming in the loft and this is ignored as people tackle what they can see and while they put out the fire downstairs the fire in the loft has time to establish itself. People put out the fire downstairs and the established fire upstairs in the loft drops hot particles downwards and this sets fire to the floor below so you get multiple seats if fire, people tackling what they can see, a fire or fires establishing themselves in unseen spaces, and a fire burning from the bottom up, and a fire at the top burning downwards.

Apply this basic principle to Grenfall?

After seeing the pictures of the fire and applying those basic principles what would you deduce?

Fire appears to have three seats, lower left hand side, just to the right and slightly up from the left hand side is another seat, and to the right hand side and up much higher there appears to be a third seat.

On the left hand side there are few sparks dropping, but on the middle and right hand side there are lots of large sparks dropping, however, on the left hand side a lot of hot molton material has dropped and is burning on the ground, so why is this still burning on the ground.

There will be vehicles around the vehicle which have fuel, there are trees and bushes, and there are surrounding buildings which could contain all manner of materials. This is important as a higher level fire will drop the molten material onto the ground which will continue burning which is important as any ground fire will draw in cold air and heat it up, this then rises and supercharges the combustion already taking place and it has the name "secondary combustion" and is used by fires using fossil fuels to burn off the emissions from the primary combustion for a hotter and cleaner burn.

@handle wrote:The cladding was aluminium. It cannot be put out by water when it burns.

http://www.g2mil.com/aluminum.htm Aluminum is much lighter than steel and relatively strong. Since it doesn't rust, it seems like the ideal metal for ships. However, no one uses aluminum for fighting ships because it can catch fire when hit, which produces intense heat that cannot be extinguished with water orHMS Sheffield regular fire extinguishers. In fact, aluminum is so volatile that powdered aluminum is a prime component in rocket fuel. The US Air Force 15,000 BLU-82B bomb contains 12,600 pounds of low-cost GSX slurry (ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, and polystyrene). The frigate USS Belknap was severely damaged in a collision with the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy on 22 November 1975 off the coast of Sicily. A fire broke out on Belknap following the collision, and during the fire her aluminum superstructure was melted, burned, and gutted to the deck level.

Basically, you need super heat to get aluminium on fire. That was no fridge.

From the same source:"The US Army learned this when it tested early versions of the aluminum Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. In the Bradley tests, small RPG explosions caused only minor damage, but ignited the aluminum body and caused most vehicles to literally burn to the ground. Even worse, burning aluminum produces deadly fumes which instantly kill anyone inside. Only after heavy criticism and actual live-fire tests did changes occur. (see "The Pentagon Wars", by J. Burton, pp. 136-193) A steel armor coat was added and "spall liners" were installed inside to catch fragments. The latest model of the Bradley has an all-steel body

I read your article about M113 and aluminum hull burnt to the ground, but the Aluminum Federation pretends - of course- that aluminum plates cannot burn: http://www.alfed.org.uk/fire.htm and that the HMS Sheffield was actually all-steel.

HOWEVERREADING ON IN THAT SAME ARTICLE AN EXPERT OPINION SAYS ALUMINIUM DOES NOT BURN ON ITS OWN

"When aluminum burns it produces Aluminum oxide, either in a residue form or as an airborne particulate. As far as I know this is bio-inert, its the same stuff they make artificial hips out of. Much of the plastics in a typical AFV produce some pretty nasty stuff if burnt, and in an oxygen poor atmosphere like the close insides of an AFV a great deal of carbon monoxide will be produced.

Aluminum is used for rocket fuel because compared to most rocket fuels it is relatively dense, this makes for a smaller rocket. However aluminum on its own will not work it needs to be mixed with other fuels (plus and oxidizer) to create a self burning rocket fuel. I don't really know why it is used over Iron but I suspect Aluminum has a higher energy density since the number of molecular bonds broken per unit mass is greater."

Doing a little bit of investigative research, I note the following page of the aluminium federation web site has been removed:http://www.alfed.org.uk/fire.htmbut I found and old copy and it says:Aluminium in BuildingAluminium alloy components are widely used in building as cladding and roofing materials, windows and doors. As defined by BS 476: Part 4 and the 1974 SOLAS Convention (as amended) aluminium alloys are 'non-combustible' and also provide Class 1 surface spread of flame to BS 476: Part 5. In addition, BS 476: Part 3 covers external fire exposure roof tests and the classifications laid down in the standard range from AA to DD. The first letter refers to the fire penetration performance and the second letter to the surface spread of flame. Aluminium and its alloys are rated AA, the highest possible under this classification system. Materials are also tested for fire propagation performance to BS 476: Part 6 (1989) and coating systems are taken into account. Aluminium achieves excellent ratings under this Standard.

Three principal methods of fire protection are employed using fire resistant insulating layers protecting an underlying aluminium component. Examples have used ceramic fibre, intumescent coatings applied to the aluminium element or composite systems with aluminium external skins. The latter have been demonstrated to be applicable both as loadbearing elements or as add-on panel systems. The aluminium skin on the exposed fire side of the system is sacrificial and melts, revealing a supported fire insulation material which provides the required period of fire performance and protects the remaining aluminium elements of the system. A small increase in insulation thickness is usually required to take account of the lower maximum working temperature limit of aluminium compared to steel. The use of radiation shielding around structures such as stair towers and walkways can provide protection, not only to personnel during a fire but prevent the temperature of the aluminium structure exceeding the working limits during the design time period.

As with all metallic materials, as the temperature increases the strength of aluminium alloys is reduced at a rate dependent on the alloy, The structural aluminium alloys have useful maximum working temperature limits that range from 200° to 250°C. Above this temperature the strength is significantly reduced, Recent tests on a structure did show, however, that although parts of the structure reached close to 300°C they were able to carry the required loads.